Sunday, 1 July 2012

Why the Republicans keep on lying and wanting to repeat Bush mistakes

The Republicans keep on wanting to repeat the failed Bush policies of
taxing the poor more than the rich and removing all controls to the
point of allowing the loan scandals to destroy the world's economy.

The Republicans keep on wanting to repeat this mistake blaming it on
Obama's policies. Obama policies were working until the US citizens
voted in the Republican congress who passes extensions of Bush tax
exemptions for the rich while blocking taxes for the rich to make them
pay as much as the poorer people.

The blame and want to repeal immediately the Obamacare and yet DO NOT
REPEAL IMMEDIATELY the almost similar Romneycare in Massachusetts.

What I don't like about the comment below are the blatant lies and
arrogant misinformation that it cultivates. In a way it reflects on
the current US voter sentiments who believe that letting rich people
be taxed much less is good for them. It is ridiculous when it is well
proven that it failed miserably during the Bush and Reagan eras.

After the Supreme Court approved ObamaCare Thursday, the president
gave a speech. I think it needs decoding.

Obama: Today's decision was a victory for people all over this
country.

It's a victory for central planners, not "people." One thing I've
learned in 42 years of reporting is that centrally planned bureaucracy
kills innovation, increases costs and undercuts personal liberty.

"It may be true in many cases, but not in all cases as compared to no
central planning at all. Cases are disaster reliefs, national defence,
public security and now insurance"

If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have
health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.

Unless your insurance company, like Principal Financial, leaves the
business, because you've made it bad business. Then people lose their
policy.

"This is the crux of the matter. Insurance companies are afraid of
losing to competitors, the government. So strange for Republicans who
believe that competition is healthy for the nation and blaming the
governments are always inefficient. So let Republicans prove it by
allowing Obamacare to test itself. If REpublicans allow Romneycare,
why not Obamacare that is almos the same?

Prove that private insurance companies are ALWAYS MORE EFFICEINT than
government insurance companies."

This law will only make it more secure and more affordable.

It's impossible to do both.
" Only impossible for Republicans who allow only profit oriented
private insurance companies to compete among themselves without any
oversight or checking on their activities and practices"

Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26
are able to stay under their parent's health care plans…

That will make insurance cost more.

"It will but not that much more."

…A provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.

And made insurance cost more.
"Optional insurance is much more expensive than mandatory insurance.
More people opt for insurance the costs can be shared among more
people. It may cost more, but it was still affordable to the 6
million. By mandating it, the existing 6 million will experience even
lower premiums because of the economy of scale.

This fact should be well known to anyone who is interested in
insurance, which makes me suspect that this Stossel is lying or
deliberately misinform readers. Alas very common among REpublicans and
unfortunately believed by US voters, who only listen to advertisements
sponsored by rich people and rich insurance companies who benefit the
most from the Republicans of taxing the rich people and companies the
LEAST."

And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on
their prescription drugs – a discount that's already saved more than 5
million seniors on Medicare about 600 dollars each.

Even rich seniors get a handout. According to Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-
Ala., ObamaCare will cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion in the next 10
years.

"If Republicans want to tax the rich much less than the poor, why the
double standard here. I believe Obama never wanted to tax the rich
more than the poor, just tax them equitably, so naturally, the rich
should also be given access to the benefits just like everyone else,
EQUALLY.

And the figure of the cost is wildly from thin air. It may be more,
but not necessarily this large, but it certainly much less than the
defense spendings that the US cannot afford because it does not
benefit the most US citizens. Healthcare benefits the US citizens much
more, and will help in its defence as well. Sich citizens cannot
defend the county."

These provisions provide common-sense protections for middle class
families, and they enjoy broad popular support.

True, because people like "free" stuff.
"That include Republicans as well."

If you're one of the 30 million Americans who don't yet have health
insurance, starting in 2014 this law will offer you an array of
quality, affordable, private health insurance plans to choose from.

There were already plenty of options for them, including Medicare and
charity. But we in government are only happy if it's all centrally
planned. Now, you'll get to "choose" from a whole "array" of mandated
expensive and mediocre healthcare "options."

"Mandated options are completely different from plenty of options.
These plenty of options do not equate to necessary options. This is
similar to the case of installing safety belts in cars. If it is not
mandated, it will be extremely costly for us to install safety belts
which is essential in saving lives. This Stossel may feel that making
the cost of life saving options so expensive is good for the US,
because the US can spend more on weapons."

They won't be able to charge you more just because you're a woman.

That's right. They'll just charge everybody more in higher premiums
and higher taxes. But that's nuts! Women visit doctors more than
men. They consume more health care.

"that is the idea of INSURANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Pooling resources
so that the unlucky ones can get help. The private insurance
companies, in their pursuit of maximising profits, have made it their
priority to insure ONLY THOSE THAT DO NOT NEED INSURANCE, the healthy
ones."

Not charging women more for health insurance is like not charging
Charlie Sheen more for property insurance. People who incur higher
costs pay higher insurance rates or insurance doesn't work.

"Stossel is either ignorant or just lying. Even when death is certain,
some policies still can work by allowing the benefits to be only the
premium paid. Insurance companies do not lose a single cent, only the
profit margin is much less. Insurance companies make the most money by
isuring people who do not need insurance in the first place."

If you're sick, you'll finally have the same chance to get quality,
affordable health care as everyone else.

Quality? Affordable? Without a market, how would we know? Quality and
innovation come from market competition. That pretty much stops with
central planning. Canadians get "free" healthcare, and they have the
privilege of waiting 23 hours to see someone at the ER, as opposed to
the 4 hours Americans have to endure.

"So let the people decide. Let private insurance compete against
government linked insurance schemes. What is so difficult about it?
Are Republicans so afraid that their views are proven to be completely
wrong? At least the current Republicans which is already enjoying a
lot of socialism compared to the even more conservative early US
Republicans and political parties in the undeveloped nations, who have
no socialism or government planning at all."

And if you can't afford the premiums, you'll receive a credit that
helps pay for it.

And you will be taxed for that. The bill raises premiums by up to 50%
-- that's $1,500 for individuals, and $3,300 for families -- according
to a study by Blue Cross Blue Shield (BSBA).

"You will be taxed but you will get a credit also. So what?"

Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can
afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health
insurance.

Should take responsibility? No. The Supreme Court ruled that you
must buy insurance because the Feds say so. That's not "can take
responsibility," that's force.

"If you don't wear safety belt, you will be fined. Is that force or
just a responsibility? If you choose to kill someone, shouldn't you
pay for it?"

…If you ask insurance companies to cover people with preexisting
conditions, but don't require people who can afford it to buy their
own insurance, some folks might wait until they're sick to buy the
care they need…

We still will. The penalties cost less than insurance. This will
drive private insurance companies out of business. Then we will be
stuck with government care. Maybe that was the intention all along.

In fact, this idea has enjoyed support from members of both parties,
including the current Republican nominee for president.

True. Although he imposed it only on one state. We have 50.
Experiments at the state level at least allow comparison. And some
freedom. Also, when ObamaCare passed, there was not "support from
both parties." No Republicans voted for the law and Mitt Romney
promises to repeal the law if he gets elected.

"And yet Romney does not want to repeal his version of Obamacare! That
proves a lot about the accusations about people not wanting to pay
insurance."

…I didn't do this because it was good politics. I did it because I
believed it was good for the country.

"And yet you lie and distort facts. It proves a lot about your
intentions"

I believe you. Statists think that big intrusive complex government
micromanagement is a good thing.They think that government can solve
our healthcare problems. I say, "No They Can't."

And now is the time to keep our focus on the most urgent challenge of
our time: putting people back to work, paying down our debt and
building an economy where people can have confidence that if they work
hard, they can get ahead.

But ObamaCare works against all those things. It discourages those
who do work from hiring people. It makes it harder to pay down our
debt. This study predicts that the healthcare law will add $530
Billion to the national debt in just 10 years.

"If you really study the statistics, even without Obamacare, the
government healthcare cost will increase similarly. It has nothing to
do with Obamacare then. It is just inflation."

…when we look back five years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20
years from now, we'll be better off because we had the courage to pass
this law and keep moving forward.

"Why don't you give it a chance and see how it works? You may like it
so much you will find that you can't live without it? Is that what you
are afraid? Isn't it better to spend money on health than on luxury?"

We'll be better off if we have the sense to repeal it. Government
doesn't know best. Central planning, federal mandates and government
controls are a fatal conceit of an arrogant political class. Mr.
President, at Harvard Law School, you were taught that you can manage
life though paper and procedure. But that is a lie.

"So you think Harvard University lecturers are all lying?"

John Stossel is host of "Stossel" on the Fox Business Network. He's
the author of "No, They Can't: Why Government Fails-But Individuals
Succeed," "Give Me a Break" and of "Myth, Lies, and Downright
Stupidity." To find out more about John Stossel, visit his website at
johnstossel.com.